Hcsb

[glfredrick]

Rippon, if it makes you feel better, I would rather preach from the NIV 2011 than the KJV. It is a better translation and more applicable to modern people.

But I still do not take back my critique of the version.

 

[Baptist4life]

Wow! A lot of harsh words flying around this thread. Somebody must have criticized the NIV. :tongue3:

 

[Robert Snow]

Wow! A lot of harsh words flying around this thread. Somebody must have criticized the NIV. :tongue3:

Actually, this is about the HCSB. There has been a lot of talk about the NIV though, bibles that are actually relevant get talked about while others sometimes don't. :tongue3:

 

[Baptist4life]

.......bibles that are actually relevant get talked about while others sometimes don't. :tongue3:

Man, if that's the case, the KJV must be the most relevant Bible ever! :tongue3:

 

[Robert Snow]

Man, if that's the case, the KJV must be the most relevant Bible ever! :tongue3:

It will do in a crunch.

Of course the NIV is much more useful for today's Christian. I much prefer the NKJV, but the more I read the NLT, the more I like it. The NIV or other modern version is much better for younger adults. They don't have to spend half their time looking in a dictionary.

BTW, I think that the 2011 NIV is better than the 1984 NIV.

 

[Rippon]

Rippon, if it makes you feel better, I would rather preach from the NIV 2011 than the KJV. It is a better translation and more applicable to modern people.

You have said that before. It still does not mitigate your slanderous remarks.

You have not even acknowledged factual errors you have made.

You are stubborn in the extreme.

You have to stop the falsehoods.

But I still do not take back my critique of the version.

And you are still in denial of your sinful conduct.

Please review my posts : 23,26,29,31,33 and 39 for your clarification.

 

[Robert Snow]

I like both the ESV and the 2011 NIV, but if I had could only use one and had to choose, I would choose the 2011 NIV.

I will say that this is always subject to change as I read more of each version.

 

[glfredrick]

You have said that before. It still does not mitigate your slanderous remarks.

You have not even acknowledged factual errors you have made.

You are stubborn in the extreme.

You have to stop the falsehoods.



And you are still in denial of your sinful conduct.

Please review my posts : 23,26,29,31,33 and 39 for your clarification.

Just keep digging... Perhaps I am also the anti-Christ while you're at it. :thumbs:

 

[JesusFan]

Just keep digging... Perhaps I am also the anti-Christ while you're at it. :thumbs:

Well, at least you were not said to be "anti KJV" by those holding to KJVO!

 

[glfredrick]

Well, at least you were not said to be "anti KJV" by those holding to KJVO!

I'm not "anti" any Bible (well, let's set the cultish bibles in anther category) that a man or woman uses. I rather dislike some of the versions simply because they introduce complications and I retain the right to be critical of some aspects of translation in any or all of the versions by right of my education, which has equipped me in the original languages and documentary criticism, but that does not make any particular translation "bad" or "unworthy." Just subject to criticism.

 

[Rippon]

Just keep digging... Perhaps I am also the anti-Christ while you're at it. :thumbs:

Irrelevancies.

I'll quote two posters who,though not focusing on you,I think applies to you.

"The attacks [on this translation are]baseless,arrogant and foolish." (jaigner)

"Just making these kind of claims is pretty ridiculous. We need evidence,not accusation." (preachinjesus)

 

[Rippon]

The HCSB does not do away with critical gender distinctions in order to be politically correct.

You are one stubborn fella glf. You have not demonstrated any facts to back up your reckless assertions.

This was released by CBT July 9,2011:
"We object very strongly to the accusation that our gender translational decisions were motivated were motivated by a desire to avoid causing offense. Our concern is always, in every decision we make to represent God's Word accurately and naturally in modern English --we have no ther agenda."

I would like you to document any place within the 2011 NIV where "critical gender decisions" were done away with.

Gender matters in Scripture, Galatians 4, for instance, where Paul (correctly) says that we will ALL (male and female) be adopted "sons" of God and joint heirs with Christ.

And you have conveniently ignored my quote of Galatians 4:6 in the 2011 NIV.

Because the NIV2011 (and earlier versions, as well as NET, etc.) all are based completely in dynamic equivalence,...

Your assertion is completely invalid. Completely based on dynamic equivalence--that's nonsense. You'll not find that in any literature of the NIV family nor of the NET Bible. Stop making things up.

Here is one chart -- there are many other similar ones:

And your chart was error-filled.

 

[Rippon]

In 2005 David Bell did a dissertation called :A Comparative Analysis Of Formal Shifts In English Bible Translations With A View Towards Defining And Describing Paradigms.

He gave numerical values of some noted translations. These are just some of his conclusions.

NASB :55
HCSB :70
NIV :73
NJB :88

The HCSB and the NIV (of any stripe except the NIrV) share a close kinship. The two do not show much disparity.

 

[Rippon]

From the ESV Preface:
"A recurring note is included to indicate that the term 'brothers (translating the Greek word adelphoi) was often used in Greek to refer to both men and women..."


I am glad that the ESV included these notes 151 times,by my count. However,the substance of the footnote (should have been put in the text itself i.e. brothers and sisters. Even Grudem indicated he was outvoted by the translation team because he wanted the term brothers and sisters in the text.

 

[glfredrick]

From the ESV Preface:
"A recurring note is included to indicate that the term 'brothers (translating the Greek word adelphoi) was often used in Greek to refer to both men and women..."


I am glad that the ESV included these notes 151 times,by my count. However,the substance of the footnote (should have been put in the text itself i.e. brothers and sisters. Even Grudem indicated he was outvoted by the translation team because he wanted the term brothers and sisters in the text.

And, your presumption is that I agree with those issues... You are wrong.

I want the Word to be the Word as God caused it to be written.

If (IF) I could find a perfect translation, I would use that, but since there are none, I use what works best, and for me that is not an NIV 2011.

Here are a few quotes. See if you can guess their authorship:

There is irony here. The complaint against the NIV [2011] is that these changes and sensitivity concerning gender rendering would never have been made without our changing cultural climate. It actually is an observation I think is true. However, the same thing in reverse is taking place in this response to this verse by labeling the reading anachronistically feminist. So both sides are reacting with current cultural concerns in play rather than simply examining the text.

This is a key example where the CBMW is correct. It may well be that this is the text that matters most to the CBMW. It is 1 Timothy 2:12. The NIV has “assume authority” “have authority” or “exercise authority” in its rendering of this verse. I think the statement’s complaint here is right and fair. There is no alternative in the margin, either. That is yet another unfortunate feature of the rendering. I suspect this rendering bothered the statement writers more than any other in their list.

Here I find the statement fair in discussing the options of the verse, but opting for a choice that is less than likely. They get there by two means: (1) arguing Junia is likely male and (2) suggesting rendering apostle as messenger. This covers their bases twice. The problem is that IF Junia is male, there is no reason to soften the rendering of apostle. One senses both moves are being made to protect the passage for a desired result.

This complaint is odd to me in a document that is saying be as literal and precise as possible. The complaint is that the rendering “deacon” will mislead churches where deacons have a governing role in the church (because we have a woman tied to the title deacon or servant). Nowhere does the complaint reflect on the fact that the biblical term for this highest oversight slot is elder or overseer. In other words, the request is to render with a sensitivity to the current terminology and scope of a text, something the statement complains about elsewhere when the NIV does it as it relates to gender (not office). This concern is a Baptist one. So by raising it, the standard applied to the complaint in other texts is ignored here. Is it because the concern fits a category acceptable to the writers versus the other texts that run counter to such a concern? What is good for the goose ought to be good for the gander.

 

[Rippon]

How Much of the Job Does Your Translation Do?

Posted on December 11, 2011 by Rod Decker
To return to my analogy, those translations which I think come the closest to my ideal (and I realize that is a subjective judgment; you may not agree!) are those which attempt a mediating position between the two groups I’ve described above. Of these, NIV is the best known. The “feel” of the NET text is quite similar (though with “NASB-sounding” marginal readings, a fairly successful attempt to incorporate the strengths of both models). The newer HCSB falls into this group as well, though perhaps just a tad more formal than NIV (see below on HCSB). As for their calling their translation philosophy “optimal equivalence,” that’s just a marketing slogan. (If I remember correctly, NKJV did something similar; I think they used “complete equivalence”—in my opinion an even worse choice of terms.) It does not present a new way, a third “pole” on the translation spectrum. It is simply their attempt to balance formal and functional—which is fine, that’s what NET and NIV do also. But uninformed readers will think it’s something new.

 

[glfredrick]

Rippon, I see that you did not take me up on the question as to who penned the quotes in my thread above...

 

[Rippon]

Rippon, I see that you did not take me up on the question as to who penned the quotes in my thread above...

And I have noted that you have not retracted your slander.

 

[John of Japan]

In 2005 David Bell did a dissertation called :A Comparative Analysis Of Formal Shifts In English Bible Translations With A View Towards Defining And Describing Paradigms.

He gave numerical values of some noted translations. These are just some of his conclusions.

NASB :55
HCSB :70
NIV :73
NJB :88

The HCSB and the NIV (of any stripe except the NIrV) share a close kinship. The two do not show much disparity.

This is misleading, and only the preliminary figures of Bell. You did not give Bell's final figures, which are on p. 175, where he writes, "The final results for the translations are as follows: ASV(56) RSV(56) NASB(58) KJV(59) HCSB(66) NIV(77) NEB(83) TEV(93) NJB(109) MSG(110)." So Bell's final results, shown in the chart on that page, make the HCSB classed with the ASV, RSV, NASB and KJV as a traditional translation, not a modern one with the NIV, NEB and the others. By the term modern, he means he classifies the NIV, NEB and the others as dynamic/functional (see p. 351-358).

 

[Rippon]

This is misleading, and only the preliminary figures of Bell. You did not give Bell's final figures, which are on p. 175, where he writes, "The final results for the translations are as follows: ASV(56) RSV(56) NASB(58) KJV(59) HCSB(66) NIV(77) NEB(83) TEV(93) NJB(109) MSG(110)." So Bell's final results, shown in the chart on that page, make the HCSB classed with the ASV, RSV, NASB and KJV as a traditional translation, not a modern one with the NIV, NEB and the others. By the term modern, he means he classifies the NIV, NEB and the others as dynamic/functional (see p. 351-358).

You are mistaken. Bell gives his final overall Numerical Summary on page 314. Among the figures:ASV(51),NASB(55),HCSB(70),NIV(73). Those are his final results. The NIV and HCSB are neckn'neck.

For Revelation 9 on page 179:ASV(50),NASB(71),HCSB(75),NIV(88)

For Hosea 2:1-5 on page 199: ASV(59),NASB(67),NIV(84),HCSB(88)

For Romans 5:1-8 on page 220: ASV(44),NASB(49),HCSB(62),NIV(67)

For Ruth 3:13-18 on page 241 :ASV(59),NASB(59),NIV(89)HCSB(62),NIV(67)

For Matt.16:13-19 on page 265: NASB(49),ASV(50),HCSB(59),NIV(66)

For Psalm 8 on page 282: NASB(50),ASV(52),NIV(63),HCSB(64)

For Job 28:20-28 on page 301:NASB(48),ASV(50),HCSB(76),NIV(80)